PG&E Comes Out in Opposition to Prop 23
Life for 23 equals death for 32.
It is a formula neither experimental math riddle nor numeric palindrome. It is California politics.
California, a state that saw 135 different candidates run for governor in 2003, including such oddball contenders as Gary Coleman (RIP), Richard Simmons, Larry Flynt and The Terminator, always seems to have the most exciting elections. But as silly as it can sometimes seem, California, with the Governator now a who’d-a-thunk-it 7-year resident of the governor’s mansion, has blossomed into a national and global leader in renewable energy, especially solar power.
Yet much of that progress (already achieved and yet to come) is under serious threat from a much sillier but incredibly scary (and rich) source — Big Oil and its Proposition 23. The measure, which has been approved for the November ballot, would effectively kill AB 32, a landmark climate bill signed by Governor Schwarzenegger and due to realize its full impact in 2011.
Elusively dubbed the California Jobs Initiative (although Jerry Brown more aptly renamed it for the ballot), the measure would prohibit enforcement of AB 32 until the state’s unemployment rate falls below 5.5 percent (currently about 12.5 percent). Contrarily, opponents of Prop 23, which now includes Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), rebut that 23 would kill both 32 and valuable jobs in the state’s clean energy industry — it’s fastest growing economic sector.
PG&E joins the likes of George Schultz and a host of environmentalists in opposing Prop 23. Jonathan Marshall, chief of External Communications at PG&E, told CleantTechnica:
“Since actively supporting the passage of AB 32, PG&E has worked with the California Air Resources Board, California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission and other stakeholders to make AB 32 a success and a model for other jurisdictions to follow. Contrary to this responsible approach, Proposition 23 would suspend the law indefinitely, despite the critical need to combat climate change at the state, national and global level.”
PG&E is a leader among utilities in California and nationwide in the race to a clean energy economy. With so much time and money invested (including most recently a $100 million investment in solar leasing), it’s no wonder that PG&E does not want to see AB 32 suspended.
Now PG&E and the greater greentech industry must hope that the majority of California voters also stand in opposition to Prop 23. In the meantime, hopefully opposition also means a little eco-PR for AB 32, which will undoubtedly be necessary to counteract the oil industry’s well-established greenwashing machine.
Source: CleanTechnica
Photo Credit: Photobucket & Shock Ya
Posted on July 8th in Solar Politics by Dan.
July 8th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and CJI is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will create fantastic profits for the oil industry and increase air polution, especially around their refineries and there will not be lower gas prices.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
So typical to blame all this on big oil. I am a small business owner and I and every business owner I speak to is against AB32. It was enacted in 2006 when CA thought other states would follow. Not one did. Thus CA would be a go it alone state on this and it would increase everyone’s costs period.
The safest job today is to work for CARB, who passed this, 1,300 employees with $800M in budget per year, now that is BIG. So what if oil supports this, so do thousands of others or it wouldn’t have made it on the ballet. I guess you don’t put oil in your car? We should be drilling more here in CA not buying from countries in the middle east that call for our distuction.
By the way, if you READ the bill it suspends AB32 and 5 times in the last 30 years unemployment has fallen below that level so get your facts straight and get ready for more Republicans in office.
July 9th, 2010 at 7:48 am
If PG&E is so concerned about green energy, why does it lag behind other local utilities in green energy use? Both SMUD and the new Marin Community Choice Aggregate provide 25% of its energy from renewable sources at PG&E rates or lower. Marin also provides a 100% renewable plan at a higher rate. In contrast, PG&E’s percentage is only 14% and it has stated that it will be unable to meet the California 20% standard. Given PG&E’s consistent pursuit of profits regardless of public interests,a cynical, but realistic question is: “What’s the game here?”
July 9th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Whatever PG&E’s reasons for coming out against Prop 23, I’m glad it did. (And go Jerry Brown in renaming it!) Although I have to agree with itsme — given its inconsistent renewable energy record, what game is PG&E playing?